I’m finding a hard time figuring out why people are supporting John Kerry. He seems the epitome of unelectable to me. The republicans seem to know this and are doing their best to keep him “the frontrunner” in the media.
John Kerry is a long-time Senator. He has barrels of voting records, which I’m sure they are poring over right now. And those voting records are full of hypocricy.
For example, Kerry voted against the Gulf War, where we had an international mandate and general support, but for the recent war, which not only did his constituents generally not support, but the rest of the country and world. On top of that, he voted against the $87 billion to support the war he voted FOR.
Hes also a northeastern liberal, he campaigned with Dukakis’ failed campaign, strong associates can be drawn between him and the crazy liberal Kennedy.
He has a book out which has an upside-down American flag on it. He protested against the Vietnam war by throwing someone elses medals away. His own have hung proudly in his offices since then. Hes voted against many veterans benefits, including being the lone deciding vote in at least one. He has been quoted as saying, in reference to that vote, “they didn’t deserve it”.
Kerry will be owned by the Bush election machine. He’ll be painted as un-American at every juncture. Anything he says will then be painted in an un-American light as well. What is going on here?
Voters who consider electability the big issue are saying he’s the most electable, so you don’t seem to be in the majority now.
They’d rather face Dean, who doesn’t have Kerry’s military record or national experience.
Opposing Gulf War one and voting for the new resolution isn’t hypocritical. Look the word up. Kerry’s explanation, for whatever it’s worth, is that Bush didn’t even do what the resolution said as far as getting international support and going through the UN.
You’re talking about things that would alienate him from people who won’t vote for him anyway.
Who reads these days?
He fought in that war with distinction, and I don’t think he threw someone else’s medals away without permission. This makes him unelectable to you?
What’s going on here is you don’t know what’s going on here. No matter who the Democrat is, the unAmerican card will come up. It’s a given. Who are you suggesting is most immune to that if it’s not Kerry?
I’d sure like to see a citation for the story about throwing someone else’s medals away.
As a decorated war veteran, Kerry has the moral high ground - he can say to Bush, “I’ve led troops into battle, and I understand the risks.”
This is an area in which either Kerry or Clark could shine, and, frankly, Dean could not. I was hoping to see Dean do well for this reason, actually.
Dean appeals to the anti-war, more lefty crowd, but the reality is that most Americans (for reasons solid or not) favor the war with Iraq. Kerry can show his own vote in favor of it as evidence that he supported it as well, and his vote against the funding as evidence that he had begun to distrust the specifics of how it was handled. This will win him support both from Democrats and moderate Republicans discomfited by the inconsistencies between what Bush said before the war and what we’re now finding - or, rather, not finding.
I believe Kerry is a formidable threat to President Bush.
I have heard several conservatives use the classic Brer Rabbit “Please don’t throw me in that briar patch” routine. Most recently, yesterday, talk-radio conservative Neal Boortz was at it, talking Kerry up, saying what a formidable opponent he would be.
Kerry is being promoted (slyly) by conservatives because he is exactly the guy they want to face: the stereotypical Northeastern Liberal. Hell, he comes pre-demonized for their convenience.
Allegedly non-partisan public interest group headquartered in DCWhich questions his heroism in Vietnam & vaguely implies (Kerry’s 1991 chairing in the) Select Senate Committee on POW/MIA Affairs to investigate the possibility that U.S. prisoners of war and soldiers designated missing in action were still alive in Vietnam. Acting as chairman, Kerry helped persuade the group to vote unanimously that no American servicemen still remained in Vietnam…Kerry’s participation in the Committee became controversial in December 1992 when Hanoi announced that it had awarded Colliers International, a Boston-based real estate company, an exclusive deal to develop its commercial real estate potentially worth billions. Stuart Forbes, the CEO of Colliers, is Kerry’s cousin…"
Perhaps he considers bills on individual merit, rather than blindly supporting everything with an appealing label such as “veterans benefits”. Besides, is this really a card Bush supporters want to play?
I know plenty of swing voters who would happily vote for someone they perceived to be a moderate Democrat, but who would not cast their vote for someone they perceived to be a “liberal,” and in particular would not cast their vote for someone associated too closely with Ted Kennedy.
[/quote=Marley23]
Opposing Gulf War one and voting for the new resolution isn’t hypocritical. Look the word up. Kerry’s explanation, for whatever it’s worth, is that Bush didn’t even do what the resolution said as far as getting international support and going through the UN.
[/quote]
Huh? Can you clarify and use Bush Sr/Jr or I/II to specify which Bush you are talking about when? I don’t know if I’d call Kerry’s record “hypocritical”, but “inconsistent” surely comes to mind. I’m looking forward to hearing Kerry explain the thinking that went on in those 3 decisions and how it forms a coherent philosophy.
Huh? Can you clarify and use Bush Sr/Jr or I/II to specify which Bush you are talking about when? I don’t know if I’d call Kerry’s record “hypocritical”, but “inconsistent” surely comes to mind. I’m looking forward to hearing Kerry explain the thinking that went on in those 3 decisions and how it forms a coherent philosophy.
If it’s a republican strategy to get Kerry as the democratic candidate, it could backfire badly. He’s a good looking guy and has a history of standing up for what he believes in, even it won’t make him popular.
I think most people consider themselves to be the kind of person that stands up for what they believe in, without a care for what others might think. That could get him a lot of support.
And that good-looking thing won’t cost him any votes.
It’s one thing to say you’re a swing voter, it’s another to look past buzzwords such as “Northeast liberal” and “crazy liberal” and choose a candidate based on the issues. I stand by my opinion that someone who places much weight on those labels is unlikely to vote for a Democrat, since there’s always going to be a Republican who seems less “liberal” and farther removed from the Kennedys.
I don’t know why he opposed Gulf War I, but even most supporters of that war did not believe the United States was under any direct threat from Iraq. In contrast, this administration portrayed Iraq as a grave threat. Nevertheless, Kerry maintains he would not have taken the country to war, and that he made a mistake in believing the President.
“The American people are asked to pony up 87 billion. This administration did not have a plan – still does not have an adequate plan – for how you minimize the cost to Americans and minimize the threat to our troops,” Kerry said.
The hip thing to do these days if you’re a Democrat who doesn’t like the frontrunner is to claim Republicans are conspiring to put him there. :rolleyes:
I was talking about George W. Bush. His father’s war was authorized by Congress and had broad international backing, both from Europe, Arab nations, and others. Last year’s war didn’t have those things. The resolution that passed last October authorized the use of force if it was necessary. Anybody who thought that didn’t mean war was coming is kidding himself, but I think it’s a reasonable position to say “I would have supported use of force if the President had exhausted every other option and built real international support, but he didn’t.” Even some people who supported the war agree with that.
Exactly. So parse it however you want, he’s got to explain why he voted against a war that had broad international support, but voted for a war that didn’t. You may be fine with it, but I’m not sure the middle of the road, politically independent voters will be so understanding. Those are the ones he’ll have to address. And anyone who thought Bush wouldn’t go to war with Iraq if given the authorization is naive beyond description.
Of course, Bush has his share of 'splining to do, so maybe it’ll be a war of who can be the most obfuscatory on the matter.
Well, now that Kerry is at the front of the pack, I think it’s time to look him over. However, all the stuff I’ve found in the media has to do with completely superficial aspects of his campaign, ranging from campaign finance to possible facelifts.
Any Kerry supporters want to wander in here and explain his policies? What’s his platform? What are his views and beliefs?
It’s all well and good to argue campaign strategy, but without an understanding of the candidate involved, it’s pretty trivial. This man might be President.
Sell him to me. Assume that I have a functional brain, can understand long words, and am eager to get an idea of the candidate’s qualifications.
His qualifications are numerous, and his platform comprehensive. It would take an awful lot of typing, and anything posted here would be subject to whatever abridgement, elaboration or spin the poster chose to apply.
The GOP would be shooting itself in the foot if it tried to make an issue of POWs/MIAs now. Some people acting independently tried to tar John McCain with his involvement with this committee, but it didn’t stick.
Bush will win the obfuscation war, since Kerry already admitted he made a mistake.
I would think those hypothetical polically independent voters might be more understanding of Kerry’s vote than partisan extremists. The idea of believing the President of the United States and having your trust betrayed could resonate with a lot of people.
Only one mistake? Is he still saying his vote against Gulf War I was a mistake? Seems like what he did in all 3 instances (GW I, GWII, $87B) was to tow the Democtratic party line.
Perhaps. I still don’t think most Americans (even those on the left) would buy the line that “I voted to authorize force, but I didn’t think Bush would acually use it”. Apparently you do, so he’s got at least one supporter on that point.
